Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Nutrition / Supplements Forum' started by cfreetenor, Nov 16, 2018.
Right there in the name-
One lb of fat = 3500 calories to make
One lb of muscle = ????
Sounds like a straightforward question BUT there are far to many variables to make such a determination.
The fat estimate is a gross generalization and is based upon the premise of calories in = calories out BUT on a comparative basis absorbed fat unlike protein requires very little assimilation or energy expenditure to become adipose tissue.
I knew there was a difference, let me explain why I ask.
If I cut 500 calories out of my diet every day, I usually lose close to a pound of actual fat. That part seems to add up.
However when I am putting on weight, the amount of weight I gain is nowhere near one pound for every 3500 calories. I remember when I first made the decision to eat significantly large amounts of food, with what I was eating on a daily basis I should have gained 50-60lbs in two months instead of the 30 that I did if the 3500/lb held true.
In my opinion, understanding this more would go a ways toward explaining the ultra high calorie diets that a lot of people here recommend - and that many recommend elsewhere even for those who aren’t juicing. It doesn’t seem to make much sense to raise calories by 500 every day and expect a pound of weight gain weekly, either.
I think the 3500 rule applies to caloric expenditure (e.g. exercise) rather than dietary consumption. We know that taking the 10000 calorie challenge will not result in a sudden 2.86 lbs (=10000÷3500) of fat weight gain. It takes energy to absorb energy and not all excess nutrients are stored (i.e. shit).
Also I wouldn't assume a daily deficit of 500 calories below some estimated BMR to result in a lb of fatloss as proof of the 3500 rule. That sounds like confirmation bias. In fact much of the weightloss at the beginning is water. After a protracted deficit, weightloss slows considerably. It's assumed that out BMR has changed but did we accurately estimate the BMR throughout the diet?
True for protein but muscle isn't just protein.
Very aware. He’s not actually looking for weight the specific weight of a pound of muscle is he wants a magic number that gains him a pound of muscle a week so that’s my magic number.
The body can absorb about 50g if usable protein on average for, not saying you only have to eat 50g I’m saying in a surplus that’s how much it can permanently
Store for a natty no stats for that can accurately be measured for enhanced person to person but say a range of 50-200g on the genetically freaked guys plus being enhanced. So 1812 is the number of and roughly 32-36 days on average for a trained indivial to gain a solid pound of muscle.
You missed the fact that muscle stores water, which counts towards LBM. This weight is not reflected in dietary protein consumption.
Maybe I’m just asking what I actually asked.
Yes, I’ve also left out a ton of other detail on the subject as well. I’m not going to write a paper for the answer but that is the jyst of it. You can look into a youtube video that maybe norton put out for maximum possible protein absorption a day where he compares it to enhanced individuals as well it’s 10 mins long and will explain it more or if you’re more into the papers I can probably dig up the paper I read on it, but I ain’t typing out everything on a cellular sorry bud
Something concrete like you mentioned would be useful and appreciated, because as your math works out here, in a trained individual every calorie past a daily surplus of around 60kcals would be stored as fat.
Unless the supposition is that we burn more calories while in an anabolic state, in which case it would take more than 1812 calories to build a pound of muscle.
My goal actually was to look for lived experience here. As you can imagine there are more variables than could conceivably be accounted for in one study or video, so just one reference like that would probably not be enough to abide.